• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

wise as serpents innocent as doves

jesus

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 goodman

  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • -6

Posted 02 July 2014 - 10:20 AM


any comments on this quote by jesus christ?

#2 goodman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • -6

Posted 12 July 2014 - 09:33 PM

nobody? i mean, its such a powerful thing to say
  • Good Point x 1

#3 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 18 July 2014 - 12:04 PM

my comment:

 

a typical BPDish ideal.

 

in my opinion Jesus was a BPDish (borderline personality disorder) individual with compensating (covert) narcissism exhibiting his mesiah complex and madonna/whore complex accross the bible.

 

in my definition of BPD contrasted against NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) a BPDer dreams of being the savior, the protector - meaning the ultimate narcissistic fantasy in the direction of being loved by people. and so controlling them by passive aggression (withholding whatever causes people to love you).

 

this is contrasted against true outright NPD who dreams of positions in power, being the kind, the emperor, the alpha, the ruler - meaning the ultimate narcissistic fantasy in the direction of being feared by people. And so controlling them by active aggresion (using whatever causes people to fear you).

 

Both of these disorders carry around each other within them, the NPDer projects BPD onto everyone he communicates with, and the BPDer projects NPD to anyone he communicates with. They are two sides of the same coin. It is just a question wether the self(ego) is trapped on which side of the coin. The NPD-BPD couple is deemed to be the most "hot" couple of personality disorders and wider. A BPDers will instinctively seek out and find NPD individuals for partners and vice versa because they fit so well into each others projections from the start - they "click" and it's "love at first sight".

 

And so, the BPDer is aware of the potential for being loved by people and it is his prime motivator and goal towards he invests effort but is simultaneously also acutely aware of what he is NOT - feared by people(love and fear don't integrate well in the mind), he in fact fears other people and projects NPD into them, so in order to avoid any damage they might inflict, he has to be wiser than them, he can then cast his protective shield over the rest of the people and gain their love by protecting them against the NPDer. this is why "wise as serpents"(NPDers).

 

Jesus worked this relationship in his head to "the end" deeming the "bad urges"(NPD type urges) to be devils temptation which he invited onto himself to save the people from them. He in fact caused the people to exhibit them as many BPDers make people into NPDers simply by projecting this onto them. 

 

Most all "white men" religions feature glorification of "master morale"(power morale) (by nietzsche) where their God is the most powerful and is to be feared, including christianities old testament. 

 

Jesus is pretty much the only character who managed to create a religion from "slave morale"(love morale) (by nietzsche) where the God is merciful and forgiving. 

 

Either of the two side of the coin is in fact still the coin of narcissism and dualism, an extreme is never good and this has in fact been realized long before jesus, by buddha.

 

Buddhism is the only "religion"(in fact more of a mental discipline) recognizing these extremes and showing them for what they are, an illusion of dualism, defrauding religion along with most other denial tactics that enslave our minds. 

 

Furthermore, one only has to look at the animals chosen to understand that he has more to say than is obvious at first glance. A dove is not less intelligent than a serpent. The statement in fact doesn't really make sense for what it supposed to deliver - a tangible description of "what you need to be". It really shows a misunderstanding of the cycle of life where a serpent is deemed evil while the dove is deemed "good". Introjection of such dualisms into the minds of the unsuspecting causes them to get used to such bad mental thought discipline and it carriers the world into emotionally blind consumerism of today. The dove is no better or worse than the serpent. The idea they can be classified according to this comes from the notion of what these two animals represent to us, as humans. Doves can't hurt us, serpents can. Doves can be loved as we need not fear them, serpents must be feared which is why we must be wise. The little sentence alone delivers correctly the cognitive dissonance that existed within Jesuses mind throughout his life.


Edited by addx, 18 July 2014 - 12:28 PM.

  • Ill informed x 2
  • Well Written x 1

#4 goodman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • -6

Posted 23 July 2014 - 12:32 PM

well maybe then i am one of these ppl who have that disease...
I ll give u an example...for me i always found it strange when i read an article on sciencedaily or similar sites and somehow already thought I was wise as these researchers before they came up with the studyand the results....for example lets say ''scorpions are master architects", why, by just looking at the animal i somehow have the feeling that i had this knowledge before..is this from evolution? but then i guess when i look for the answer to where the knowledge comes from its more of an intuitive thing and like a 'i had this thought before thing'

greetings goodman
  • Ill informed x 1

#5 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 23 July 2014 - 12:49 PM

 

I'm definitely influenced by Nietzsche in my thinking. Looking at it this thought it somewhat reflects the dichotomy of master/slave morality. The question is, are you actively engaged in shaping your existence, or are you passively determined by forces beyond your control? Of course, we can't extricate ourselves from wider forces entirely (in the physical sense), but we can take charge of our little corner of the universe if we are inclined to do so.
 
There is also a third, more powerful way, which is to learn how to dissolve the tension which ensnares us into mindless hungering after things and status... this way is meditation. Even the power of the greatest will crumble in the briefest passage of time. True power is freedom from the impulse to control, as this impulse is a symptom of weakness, fear and paranoia. When we cave in to an impulse, like the impulse for social status, we are being fundamentally reactive, just puppets to the whims that bind us.
 
Most people would say that someone is alpha who is self-directive in a social sense, that is, free from the whims of others. But I think the mental perspective is much deeper and more important, not least for significance and power of mind. Who really gives a sweet fuck if someone thinks your cool if you can't even control your own mind?
 
Sorry, got a bit off track there... To answer your question, Buddhist philosophy and my personal experience of learning to let go in meditation are the influences on this line of thinking.
 
I also see all categories (and therefore also language) as fundamentally arising out of, and creating, tension, both mentally and physically. Why do we divide the world? So we can get a better grasp on it, to control it. Why do we control the world? At base, to ensure our continuing survival, that is, to maintain our physical integrity as organisms. Categorisation is thus a scarcity response - "something is wrong, I need to figure out what it is".
 
The sense of self as cut off from the world, the severance of the universe in two, is the originary duality which grounds all others. Without this there is no reactive impulse to use the tools of abstraction and language. A tool is something we use to get somewhere... but where could the totality of existence possibly go? Next door? Full relaxation is the realisation of this fundamental unity. You can see why duality, or categorization, is a state of tension.
 
When everything is running smoothly, linguistic and self-constructs usually dissolve and the myopia of 'gotta fix this' expands into a wider field of experience. The chronic state of tension many people exist in today prohibits moving into this state. Until we learn to relax our minds fully, to let go of the push to control the world in whatever way, we will never be free from the compulsion to be what we are not.


This is probably the best post I've ever seen written on this forum and is on track with one of the most inspiring texts I've read online.

http://www.thenewyog...g/use&abuse.htm

 

 


well maybe then i am one of these ppl who have that disease...
I ll give u an example...for me i always found it strange when i read an article on sciencedaily or similar sites and somehow already thought I was wise as these researchers before they came up with the studyand the results....for example lets say ''scorpions are master architects", why, by just looking at the animal i somehow have the feeling that i had this knowledge before..is this from evolution? but then i guess when i look for the answer to where the knowledge comes from its more of an intuitive thing and like a 'i had this thought before thing'

greetings goodman

 

it's "subjective knowledge". knowledge from experience, associating experience etc etc. it all settles down into your subconscious and voila, you say things "wise as serpents" because your life experience has led you to form an opinion of serpents as wise(but in fact rather dangerous requiring you to be wise to avoid them). it's not a disease, it's just how the mind works. jesus, if I am right, had an extreme viewpoint of life, the sentence merely shows the direction of his viewpoint rather than the amplitude. such a sentence could be said by a perfectly normal person, but jesus didn't really just say it, he lived it - to the bitter end, testifying the enormity of the amplitude.

 

Here's a quote from a member here who impressed me with a similar understanding and ability to express it

 

http://www.longecity...e-2#entry670749

I'm definitely influenced by Nietzsche in my thinking. Looking at it this thought it somewhat reflects the dichotomy of master/slave morality. The question is, are you actively engaged in shaping your existence, or are you passively determined by forces beyond your control? Of course, we can't extricate ourselves from wider forces entirely (in the physical sense), but we can take charge of our little corner of the universe if we are inclined to do so.
 
There is also a third, more powerful way, which is to learn how to dissolve the tension which ensnares us into mindless hungering after things and status... this way is meditation. Even the power of the greatest will crumble in the briefest passage of time. True power is freedom from the impulse to control, as this impulse is a symptom of weakness, fear and paranoia. When we cave in to an impulse, like the impulse for social status, we are being fundamentally reactive, just puppets to the whims that bind us.
 
Most people would say that someone is alpha who is self-directive in a social sense, that is, free from the whims of others. But I think the mental perspective is much deeper and more important, not least for significance and power of mind. Who really gives a sweet fuck if someone thinks your cool if you can't even control your own mind?
 
Sorry, got a bit off track there... To answer your question, Buddhist philosophy and my personal experience of learning to let go in meditation are the influences on this line of thinking.
 
I also see all categories (and therefore also language) as fundamentally arising out of, and creating, tension, both mentally and physically. Why do we divide the world? So we can get a better grasp on it, to control it. Why do we control the world? At base, to ensure our continuing survival, that is, to maintain our physical integrity as organisms. Categorisation is thus a scarcity response - "something is wrong, I need to figure out what it is".
 
The sense of self as cut off from the world, the severance of the universe in two, is the originary duality which grounds all others. Without this there is no reactive impulse to use the tools of abstraction and language. A tool is something we use to get somewhere... but where could the totality of existence possibly go? Next door? Full relaxation is the realisation of this fundamental unity. You can see why duality, or categorization, is a state of tension.
 
When everything is running smoothly, linguistic and self-constructs usually dissolve and the myopia of 'gotta fix this' expands into a wider field of experience. The chronic state of tension many people exist in today prohibits moving into this state. Until we learn to relax our minds fully, to let go of the push to control the world in whatever way, we will never be free from the compulsion to be what we are not.

 

 

This is pretty much my viewpoint from which I analyze and ponder. 

 

Categories in bold in the quote in fact represents labeling stuff, labeling a serpent a serpent, a dove a dove, therefore dividing. labeling a serpent wise, a dove innocent, more dividing, more tension. those are all categorisations required by our minds in order to control, understand or predict our existence in areas where doves or serpents exist. 

 

Jesus divided the entire behavior of all people onto "good" and "bad" and then conquered the "bad" by "inventing" a devil and his "temptations" and engulfed the "good" by pretending to be the son of God and claiming that doing good is approaching god. 

This is an obvious basic paranoid-schizoid thought schema (object relations M. Klein).

 

NPDers for example engulf power and conquer weakness. (master morale)

BPDers engulf love and conquer badness(hatefulness).  (slave morale)

 

What represents power or weakness or love or badness changes/evolves over time, but the main paranoid-schizoid relating remains always.

 

These axis are biologically/neurologically tangible rather than simply being arbitrary philosophies pondered up by "good philosophic thinking". They crop up in every which way in any philosophy, religion, psychiatric disorders, you name it. Even politics, right wing being NPDish(master morale) and left wing BPDish(slave morale). Communism is an ideal of slave morale, capitalism of master morale. 

 

 


Edited by addx, 23 July 2014 - 01:09 PM.


#6 goodman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • -6

Posted 23 July 2014 - 01:30 PM

so u never had a weird intuitive moment? isnt the snake the real slave and the dove free ;)
  • Good Point x 1

#7 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 23 July 2014 - 01:45 PM

I'm not establishing my perfection by pointing out these points or "truths"(IMO). I'm far from "serene" or "zen", in fact I am at an extreme end as well IMO.

 

I'm basicaly on the same trail as Jesus as far as intuition and "stance towards the world" goes. Same "mistakes", same thought process, which is why I believe myself into thinking I understand what he was about. Incidentaly, my notion of the world and behavior started suddenly changing at the age of 30...

 

It's hard to correct these 'intuitive notions' that have been established over the years since birth, especially those that burned in while the brain was still developing (up to cca 21 years of age). What's done is done, I am now more "aware" of them, but I still have them, I have to actively think "around them" by actively applying the new knowledge that I gained. Hopefully it will change me for the better over time and become more automatic, but I doubt I'll ever reach a serenity of a buddhist monk or anything near that.


Edited by addx, 23 July 2014 - 01:48 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#8 goodman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • -6

Posted 23 July 2014 - 02:06 PM

doesnt buddhism hinduism say knowledge is the root of all human suffering? like the snake in the garden?
from an evolutionary perspective we got sth from the snake and that is vision, why we see so well is because we feared snakes and needed to see better, apparently according to research
  • Ill informed x 1

#9 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 23 July 2014 - 02:08 PM

IMO the snake and dove are both simply subject to their own existence, they slave for it(their existence) and they enjoy it. 

 

That is basically all that can be said about them, us or anything else existing and being aware of existing in some way. 

 

Anything more than that would be a personal/subjective/skewed perception. Skewed by your own personal experience with them (or anything associating to them).

 

Being bitten by snakes many times skews the perception, this is how subjective experience forms notions of things being good or evil (they were good or evil in relation to you, with you removed from the relation, they simply existed as themselves doing what they do). 

 

 


Edited by addx, 23 July 2014 - 02:08 PM.


#10 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 23 July 2014 - 02:43 PM

doesnt buddhism hinduism say knowledge is the root of all human suffering? like the snake in the garden?
from an evolutionary perspective we got sth from the snake and that is vision, why we see so well is because we feared snakes and needed to see better, apparently according to research

 

True, knowledge would be "categorization" or dividing things as bolded in the above quoted text from OpaqueMind. As the text continues he explains how it is the source of suffering, but it would probably be more fair to say it is a manifestation, or a symptom of suffering. But maybe that's more of a chicken vs. egg question.

 

Gaining knowledge is an attempt to remove some suffering with it - attempt to control a part of reality that we "know" inflicts this suffering.

Buddhists try and realize the suffering itself and to release themselves from it, rather than subjugate their minds and bodies to removing suffer by controlling the external conditions. 

 

In that sense, I am gaining knowledge to remove my suffering which I deem to be caused by a bad "discipline of life and thought". In reality, I am gaining wisdom rather than knowledge. I am releasing knowledge, realizing the illusion behind all dualisms(categorization) and releasing myself from their "pull". I would call this "feature" of dualism/cycle realisation - wisdom. 

 

Knowledge is experience of control.

 

Wisdom is experience(integrated as acceptance rather than fear) of lack of control.

 

Wisdom causes "good timing" because lack of control is predicted by it and saves effort, reduces expectation and therefore disappointment which is a form of suffering and so increases well being..

 

Knowledge, aside from the effort required to reach it, also causes suffering because lack of control(inherent in basically everything) is overlooked when you "feel sure" of knowledge.

 

Overlooking lack of control easily happens perpetually because experienced lack of control is not integrated and accepted properly but feared and therefore thoughts of it are avoided automatically causing ignorance displays.

 

Knowledge of control(PFC) is activated by the amygdala (id + superego) and inhibited by wisdom(ego - vmPFC).


Edited by addx, 23 July 2014 - 03:04 PM.


#11 goodman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • -6

Posted 23 July 2014 - 02:59 PM

thanks a lot for the detailed answers, i was diagnosed schizophrenic and after many talks with different therapists and doctors i wtill thought this had to be a joke...but insightful rational posts like this may help me get out of my fantasy world
  • Good Point x 1

#12 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 23 July 2014 - 03:01 PM

Really? I thought most schizophrenics have little doubt about them being schizophrenic? It would make more sense if you said shizotypal rather than schizophrenic..

 

I have a history of schizo in my family...


Edited by addx, 23 July 2014 - 03:02 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#13 shifter

  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 23 July 2014 - 10:00 PM


 

Most all "white men" religions feature glorification of "master morale"(power morale) (by nietzsche) where their God is the most powerful and is to be feared, including christianities old testament. 

 

I didn't know Arabs were considered 'white men'. Sure, white men follow the religion, as do black men, yellow men etc. But Christianity (and all Abrahamic religions) are not  'white men' religions. I guess we could claim 'Scientology' as 'our' white man religion lol

 

 

Also you need to look at the context of the quote in full

"Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves"

 

Depending on which 'version' of the bible you read, 'innocent' is replaced with 'harmless'.

 

I guess in the context of the quote, he was cautioning his disciples (sent out as 'sheep') to basically keep on guard at all times  (around the 'wolves'). Sound advise really.  I guess he also didn't want them killing or using violence to spread his messages. (perhaps, like parts of the world today, killing people that didn't agree with you was a popular past time).

 

This advice you could say that to your own kid if he/she were to go overseas or if he/she going out at night and your a bit worried about their safety.

 

This advice is also useful if an annoying Jehovah Witness comes to your door trying to 'convert' you. Rather then beat the daylights out of him or scream and yell to get rid of him just use wisdom and intelligence and quote 2 bible phrases.

 

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

 

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

 

There. You've trapped them. And you were as 'wise as a serpent and as innocent (or harmless) as a dove.

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, you people look into this much too deep. It really is just simple.


Edited by shifter, 23 July 2014 - 10:13 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#14 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 23 July 2014 - 10:55 PM

 


 

Most all "white men" religions feature glorification of "master morale"(power morale) (by nietzsche) where their God is the most powerful and is to be feared, including christianities old testament. 

 

I didn't know Arabs were considered 'white men'. Sure, white men follow the religion, as do black men, yellow men etc. But Christianity (and all Abrahamic religions) are not  'white men' religions. I guess we could claim 'Scientology' as 'our' white man religion lol

 

 

Nevertheless, arabs are white or caucasian, however you spell it.

 

But consider egyptian religion and other ancient religions like pagan gods, greek gods, roman gods, catholic and jewish god(from old testament) and allah.

 

I'm not really trying to make a point about it, I can't really explain why this is so, don't really care, it just makes listing them convenient.



#15 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 24 July 2014 - 08:26 PM

 

 

There. You've trapped them. And you were as 'wise as a serpent and as innocent (or harmless) as a dove.

 

 

 

Honestly, you people look into this much too deep. It really is just simple.

 

 

 

 

So much text but you still didn't really touch the main point.

 

A serpent is not wise.

 

There is no basis and there has never been a basis for a people to consider a serpent a pinnacle of wisdom among the animal life.

 

But it does, in bible stories embody the devil himself, and often so in other religious or fictional writings . 

 

So, maybe you look too shallow.


Edited by addx, 24 July 2014 - 08:27 PM.

  • Unfriendly x 1

#16 shifter

  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 25 July 2014 - 12:32 AM

We are talking about something someone said 2000 odd years ago. And translated from another language. Even in my short time here on earth, definitions of words change, new meanings added or subtracted etc

How do you know that 'wise serpant' was not an expression used by the people of that society back then. Perhaps Jesus just used it. Not created it.

Let's look at other synonyms of the word 'wise' and see if any fit in with man's perception of a snake or the snake of Eden
(from thesaurus)

intelligent, reasonable

Synonyms: astute, aware, calculating, careful, clever, cogitative, contemplative, crafty, cunning, discerning, discreet, educated, enlightened, erudite, experienced, foresighted, grasping, informed, insightful, intuitive, judicious, keen, knowing, knowledgeable, perceptive, perspicacious, politic, prudent, rational, reflective, sagacious, sage, sane, sapient, scholarly, sensible, sensing, sharp, shrewd, smart, sophic, sound, tactful, taught, thoughtful, understanding, wary, well-informed, witty

Some definitions of the bible use 'crafty' I see that up there.

There is a few words that you could use for a snake or someone of evil character. Wise does not imply goodness. Evil and may people can also be 'wise'

Do you KNOW Jesus used the word 'wise'. Maybe he said in the meanings of that day and society 'tactful', 'sharp', 'shrewd', 'discreet', 'prudent', 'cunning' etc etc. We could apply these words to describe snakes. Snakes aren't stupid animals afterall. Sending sheep out among wolves the sheep could do with a few snake traits. Sheep also are considered 'stupid' (or at least not very bright).

Your entire answer was based on a presumption that Jesus invented the expression (and was wrong) and the word 'wise' means the same thing then in another society then it does today and that the word 'wise' is the direct translation of what he said. Hell, the same word in one language can have different meanings in another.

He's sending his sheep among wolves. Why would his advice be new,foreign and confusing to them. Clearly they already knew what he meant. 'wise serpent' (or whatever synonym used) may have been around already

Edited by shifter, 25 July 2014 - 12:34 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#17 goodman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • -6

Posted 25 July 2014 - 06:48 AM

exactly..the wolves are also a rather harsh kind of animal to humankind, they howl at the moon like a woman on her cycle and the serpent I would call a sly and cunning but poisoneous animal...in buddhism there is the kundalini force in the body that also involves great wisdom for humankind...the egyptians talk about snakeraces of humans aka nephilims similar to bible accounts but now im getting into rather crazy conspiracy theory

#18 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 25 July 2014 - 07:59 AM

He's sending his sheep among wolves.

 

Exactly.

 

My quote

 

 

Both of these disorders carry around each other within them, the NPDer projects BPD onto everyone he communicates with, and the BPDer projects NPD to anyone he communicates with. 

 

Jesuses "crew" are BPDers(sheep) and the rest are NPDers(wolves). 

 

 

I'm not just overanalysing a sentence, I'm commenting it in within the context of Jesuses actions and intentions as I interpret them. 

 

Jesus displayed extreme views and dualisms that signify great internal discord and tension which I think are obvious from his teachings. 

 

That's my opinion anyway. 

 

 

 

Here's some random quote from the bible

 

 

 

 

2 Cor. 5:21 says "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him

 

Here's a quote from my post above

 

in my definition of BPD contrasted against NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) a BPDer dreams of being the savior, the protector - meaning the ultimate narcissistic fantasy in the direction of being loved by people

 

Jesus worked this relationship in his head to "the end" deeming the "bad urges"(NPD type urges) to be devils temptation which he invited onto himself to save the people from them. 

 

 

His internal discord breaks out at only a few moments, the most important being "Father why have you forsaken me". 

 

And so on... We can take basicaly anything he did and show the master/slave morality contrast in his every breath.


Edited by addx, 25 July 2014 - 08:17 AM.

  • Ill informed x 1

#19 Ames

  • Guest
  • 361 posts
  • 74
  • Location:Cloud 7

Posted 19 May 2015 - 03:24 AM

I think that the psychoanalytical analysis is a large stretch, to say the least.

 

@ADDX

 

First, if you are a literal Messiah than it isn't a complex. Christianity and Judaism depend on belief in literal Messiahs. The term "complex' refers to a belief in a specific reality that does not exist. It may not insofar as the actual truth or falseness of these religions are concerned, but the assumption of a "messiah complex" is first predicated on non-belief in these religions. Thus, you could only say something akin to: "assuming the religion is false, Jesus had a Messiah complex". If he actually was a/the Messiah, then he did not. Either belief is your own business, but the dependency on this fact of the argument should be made clear.This holds similarly true for your assessment of Jesus as BPD, as per your definition. Ie: your assertion that Jesus pathologically projected NPD assumes a moral relativism that condones the behavior of NPDs, from a Christian moral perspective. Also, pathologizing his "protective shield" assumes that he really could not save them.

 

Christianity and Judaism are not "white men religions". They are Semitic religions. Though, I get it, because it is very trendy to assign much that is perceived as faulty to white men. Not that I am unwilling to own Christianity for the sake of argument. I am just stating a point of fact. But why the readiness to endorse Buddhism as more wise? Are you aware of what the higher Initiations of Tibetan Buddhism require? Hint: it's the same as all tantric and Gnostic religions. What do you actually know about so called non-duality? The concept is perhaps the least understood and most over-popularized in the last 100 years. Whether duality is an "illusion" I don't believe was a part of your proofs and as such it should not be taken for granted as a proof. I, for one, do not endorse the philosophical moral relativity that such non-duality gives rise to. Or perhaps it is the other way around.

 

Also, Rene Girard > Nietzsche for sociological rationalizations of Christianity. 


Edited by golgi1, 19 May 2015 - 03:25 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#20 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 19 May 2015 - 07:59 AM

I think that the psychoanalytical analysis is a large stretch, to say the least.


@ADDX
 
First, if you are a literal Messiah than it isn't a complex.


Yes, and if you really are a god then you can't be an egomaniac, but are righteously narcissistic.

You actually think this is something worth pointing out? I find this point only has comedic-satiric value.
 

Christianity and Judaism depend on belief in literal Messiahs. The term "complex' refers to a belief in a specific reality that does not exist. It may not insofar as the actual truth or falseness of these religions are concerned, but the assumption of a "messiah complex" is first predicated on non-belief in these religions. Thus, you could only say something akin to: "assuming the religion is false, Jesus had a Messiah complex". If he actually was a/the Messiah, then he did not. Either belief is your own business, but the dependency on this fact of the argument should be made clear.This holds similarly true for your assessment of Jesus as BPD, as per your definition. Ie: your assertion that Jesus pathologically projected NPD assumes a moral relativism that condones the behavior of NPDs, from a Christian moral perspective. Also, pathologizing his "protective shield" assumes that he really could not save them.


A supernatural belief can trump all else (for the person believing it), that goes without saying.

There's no point in your "making this clear" as I'm sure any reasonable person accepts this fact as a predicate to any argument.

I'm not going to start each one of my posts with a disclaimer "if you don't believe in supernatural".

I do understand that some people who believe in something get offended by reading texts of people who don't share their beleifs. It makes them feel insecure about their beliefs. This for me is rather a symptom of weak faith and is of no consequence to the value of my text.
 

Christianity and Judaism are not "white men religions". They are Semitic religions.


They are more precisely called abrahamic religions and this includes Islam (Islam is a relative copy paste of christianity and arabs are semites as well).

Semites(and so also arabs) ARE white men and furthermore christianity may have been born out of the jewish nation but it was spread by slaves including non-semitic and mostly white people while jews frowned upon it to say the least. Christianity was finally uphieved to an "official"(state/politics endorsed) religion by the romans - a white nation and, as islam was spread by the sword of white people for centuries to come.

And furthmore, the term "white men religions" was used out of convenience, not judgement.

This is again a discussion-wise worthless and unnecessary correction of my post.
 

Though, I get it, because it is very trendy to assign much that is perceived as faulty to white men.


And now a comment trying to cheapen my opinion by projecting trendyness on it. Do you actually have an argument?
 

Not that I am unwilling to own Christianity for the sake of argument. I am just stating a point of fact.


What facts are you talking about? Supernatual beleifs trumping all other arguments? Or me being trendy?
 

But why the readiness to endorse Buddhism as more wise? Are you aware of what the higher Initiations of Tibetan Buddhism require? Hint: it's the same as all tantric and Gnostic religions.


I can find a difference between the embedded philosophy and various practices arising around it. I can also see consequences of the embedded philosophies - buddhism being a very peaceful way of life while all abrahamic religions have an extremely violent history and are a source of discord among people even today.
 

What do you actually know about so called non-duality? The concept is perhaps the least understood and most over-popularized in the last 100 years. Whether duality is an "illusion" I don't believe was a part of your proofs and as such it should not be taken for granted as a proof.


I have many posts or even threads explaining the origins of life and the nature of duality embedded in it from its inception. I endorse buddhism because it is the only religion to recognize this physical/universal/eternal truth of life. I would be glad to discuss it with someone who hasn't made up his mind about it and acts endangered and hostile towards people having different opinions.
 

I, for one, do not endorse the philosophical moral relativity that such non-duality gives rise to.
Or perhaps it is the other way around.


Or you rather do not understand it and so it gives rise to your misunderstandings.

We can put our "understandings" aside as we clearly wont agree and simply look at the history.

How much violence was committed in the name of various "white men religions", and how much violence was committed by following the buddhist philosophy? Therefore, buddhist philosophy doesn't give rise to moral relativity but rather the white men "messiahed" religions do.

Edited by addx, 19 May 2015 - 08:12 AM.

  • Ill informed x 1

#21 Ames

  • Guest
  • 361 posts
  • 74
  • Location:Cloud 7

Posted 19 May 2015 - 03:53 PM


 

A supernatural belief can trump all else (for the person believing it), that goes without saying.

There's no point in your "making this clear" as I'm sure any reasonable person accepts this fact as a predicate to any argument.

I'm not going to start each one of my posts with a disclaimer "if you don't believe in supernatural".

I do understand that some people who believe in something get offended by reading texts of people who don't share their beleifs. It makes them feel insecure about their beliefs. This for me is rather a symptom of weak faith and is of no consequence to the value of my text.

 

 

Excuse me, I didn't know that atheism, from the perspective of Christian belief, was a prerequisite for understanding posts in the Spirituality and Religion discussion section. That's something interesting that you have informed all of us of. Of course there would be no point in clarifying an idiosyncratic and apparently assumed premise to your argument that is contraindicative of the forum section. What was I thinking.

 

No one was offended by the content of your posts. You are reading non-existent emotion into my actual criticisms, which were based on the quality of your arguments. Ironically, it is you who is now offended that I would question your perspective based on legitimate critique of your rhetoric. As such, you have resorted to unfortunate ad-hominem.
 


 

They are more precisely called abrahamic religions and this includes Islam (Islam is a relative copy paste of christianity and arabs are semites as well).

Semites(and so also arabs) ARE white men and furthermore christianity may have been born out of the jewish nation but it was spread by slaves including non-semitic and mostly white people while jews frowned upon it to say the least. Christianity was finally uphieved to an "official"(state/politics endorsed) religion by the romans - a white nation and, as islam was spread by the sword of white people for centuries to come.

And furthmore, the term "white men religions" was used out of convenience, not judgement.

This is again a discussion-wise worthless and unnecessary correction of my post.

 

 

My word. You referred to a racial/cultural origin and so I paralleled your clumsy characterization with a more appropriate one that was at least in the same category. They are not  "more accurately" called Abrahamic religions. "Abrahamic" refers to a mythological origin. The difference is equivalent to telling me that European Paganism is not a "white men's" religion but an Odinist religion. One is not more accurate than the other; you are merely referring to different categorical characterizations. Moving the goal-post won't help you, and neither will making bad arguments because you can't stand being wrong.

 

 


And now a comment trying to cheapen my opinion by projecting trendyness on it. Do you actually have an argument?

 

 

How is denigrating religions on the supposed basis of their being of the "white man" not a cheap opinion? You cheapen yourself and don't need any help from me.
 

What facts are you talking about? Supernatual beleifs trumping all other arguments? Or me being trendy?

 

 

It's not that supernatural beliefs trump other arguments. I see what the issue is now. It's a lack of ability to closely read and analyze rhetoric. I'll help you. What I communicated, and was careful to do so, is that you made an argument that rested on the assumption of a perspective that, in this section, cannot be assumed. Implying that I stated that supernatural beliefs trump other arguments is clearly not what I wrote, and anyone who reads my reply will now easily see how confused and over-emotional you have become.

 


 

I can find a difference between the embedded philosophy and various practices arising around it. I can also see consequences of the embedded philosophies - buddhism being a very peaceful way of life while all abrahamic religions have an extremely violent history and are a source of discord among people even today.

 

 

Although I recognize the value of peace, I would argue that peace is not a legitimate sole basis for spirituality. If it were, then peace by virtue of oppression could be a religion. If peace by sociological programming is the argument for the spirituality of Buddhism, then that could be accomplished a variety of ways and thus it need not be a religion nor should spirituality be solely measured by it. Also, you are falling into the common trap/propaganda of assigning blame for historical violence and group conflict solely to the religion of any one group. Even today, Buddhists are committing violence against Muslims. That is the power of inter-group conflict. It clearly transcends religion.Though, I am certainly not defending all Abrahamic religions. Some are expressly much more violently theologically intolerant and passively theologically intolerant than others.

 


I have many posts or even threads explaining the origins of life and the nature of duality embedded in it from its inception. I endorse buddhism because it is the only religion to recognize this physical/universal/eternal truth of life. I would be glad to discuss it with someone who hasn't made up his mind about it and acts endangered and hostile towards people having different opinions.

 

 

So disagreement and rhetorical argument is hostility? Interesting. You now state your "truth" as a proof. I get that and I get passionate belief, but it can't be an argument in this discussion. Also, I wasn't stating that your beliefs were false. I was only challenging you and stating that I didn't accept the premise that you would all have us accept as your proof, apparently lest we be "endangered" and "hostile". Anyone who is reading might begin to see a pattern by this point.
 


 

Or you rather do not understand it and so it gives rise to your misunderstandings.

We can put our "understandings" aside as we clearly wont agree and simply look at the history.

How much violence was committed in the name of various "white men religions", and how much violence was committed by following the buddhist philosophy? Therefore, buddhist philosophy doesn't give rise to moral relativity but rather the white men "messiahed" religions do.

 

 

 

Sure. Now, without actual argument on your part, I simply do not understand and thus I "misunderstand". Philosophies that essentially hold man as god or have him seek progression toward god-hood are innately prone to moral relativism.

 

Have you ever actually had a real, physical and spiritual non-dual experience? I have. However, even so, it didn't lead me to any premature notion that whatever was happening in my brain is necessarily the truth of human spiritual evolution. The mechanism could have been any number of things and assigning emotional and philosophical content to the experience would be too simple.

 

See my response to your last two sentences a couple of replies up.

 

Yes, and if you really are a god then you can't be an egomaniac, but are righteously narcissistic.

You actually think this is something worth pointing out? I find this point only has comedic-satiric value.

 

 

So, assuming that Gods exist, the mere quality of being one is pathological? That's comedic, to use your quaint arguing style.


Edited by golgi1, 19 May 2015 - 03:55 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#22 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 20 May 2015 - 09:06 AM

A supernatural belief can trump all else (for the person believing it), that goes without saying.

There's no point in your "making this clear" as I'm sure any reasonable person accepts this fact as a predicate to any argument.

I'm not going to start each one of my posts with a disclaimer "if you don't believe in supernatural".

I do understand that some people who believe in something get offended by reading texts of people who don't share their beleifs. It makes them feel insecure about their beliefs. This for me is rather a symptom of weak faith and is of no consequence to the value of my text.

 
Excuse me, I didn't know that atheism, from the perspective of Christian belief, was a prerequisite for understanding posts in the Spirituality and Religion discussion section.


I think it's quite safe to assume that a person stating Jesus had a personality disorder is speaking from an atheist perspective. In fact I would consider a person who doesn't assume this to be an idiot.


You are not in fact that daft but just needed something to make me seem wrong.
 

That's something interesting that you have informed all of us of.


Atheist perspectives are just as common in this forum section as theists. Mine was obviously atheistic. Others obviously didn't need this information to process my text. You're not the first one posting in the thread, but are the first one that seems "confused" by an "atheist perspective without warning".
 

Of course there would be no point in clarifying an idiosyncratic and apparently assumed premise to your argument that is contraindicative of the forum section. What was I thinking.


No, you weren't thinking that. You were thinking hard how to make me seem wrong. And now you're grasping for straws.
 

No one was offended by the content of your posts. You are reading non-existent emotion into my actual criticisms, which were based on the quality of your arguments. Ironically, it is you who is now offended that I would question your perspective based on legitimate critique of your rhetoric. As such, you have resorted to unfortunate ad-hominem.


You made no critique of my point but rather picked out irrelevant statements that you thought you could show to be wrong and in that way try and portray me as "mostly wrong" and thus my points are all wrong.

Your comment about the actual point of my posts (which are a direct reply to the topic at hand) is
 

I think that the psychoanalytical analysis is a large stretch, to say the least.


That's all that actually refers to what I was trying to get across towards the subject of the thread. I can understand you or anyone not wanting to discuss Jesus in this sense (meaning from an atheist perspective), but you should have then ignored the post.


You pointing out that I'm wrong for not disclaiming the obvious - that this is an atheist perspective - is absurd and is not really a comment about my point but a comment about my supposed inappropriate behavior -> not disclaiming something.

You pointing out that I have misused a term "white men religion" is also not a comment about my point but about my inappropriate behavior or word picking.

You have no arguments towards the point I was getting across but are mounting a case against my behavior or simply put - against me.
 

They are more precisely called abrahamic religions and this includes Islam (Islam is a relative copy paste of christianity and arabs are semites as well).

Semites(and so also arabs) ARE white men and furthermore christianity may have been born out of the jewish nation but it was spread by slaves including non-semitic and mostly white people while jews frowned upon it to say the least. Christianity was finally uphieved to an "official"(state/politics endorsed) religion by the romans - a white nation and, as islam was spread by the sword of white people for centuries to come.

And furthmore, the term "white men religions" was used out of convenience, not judgement.

This is again a discussion-wise worthless and unnecessary correction of my post.

 
My word. You referred to a racial/cultural origin and so I paralleled your clumsy characterization with a more appropriate one that was at least in the same category. They are not  "more accurately" called Abrahamic religions. "Abrahamic" refers to a mythological origin. The difference is equivalent to telling me that European Paganism is not a "white men's" religion but an Odinist religion. One is not more accurate than the other; you are merely referring to different categorical characterizations. Moving the goal-post won't help you, and neither will making bad arguments because you can't stand being wrong.


I don't really care about that goal post. If anything, I used a clumsy characterization that makes no difference to the point I was trying to get across.

I've already stated, long before you made your appearance
 

I'm not really trying to make a point about it, I can't really explain why this is so, don't really care, it just makes listing them convenient.



And now a comment trying to cheapen my opinion by projecting trendyness on it. Do you actually have an argument?

 
How is denigrating religions on the supposed basis of their being of the "white man" not a cheap opinion? You cheapen yourself and don't need any help from me.


That's what you read. It doesn't mean that's what I meant.

As said, and now for the 3rd time, I used it out of convenience.

Say you see 5 people playing around, you see 2 people attacking the other 3 people and you need to a way to categorize them if you want to speak about the observation. If the 2 are white and 3 are not, you're gonna use "white people" to categorize/call out the attackers after they seized their attacks. It doesn't mean their color is the origin of their aggression. It just means that in those circumstance "white people" is a relatively accurate and convenient way to categorize the 2 that behaved differently than the other 3. It's simply an association.

I'm not saying whiteness of the skin is the ORIGIN of "bad religion" (i'm not even saying they're bad, but rather simply violent). You made that jump to conclusion. I stated long before you came that this is not my point or my opinion. Did you read the thread?

 

What facts are you talking about? Supernatual beleifs trumping all other arguments? Or me being trendy?

 
It's not that supernatural beliefs trump other arguments. I see what the issue is now. It's a lack of ability to closely read and analyze rhetoric. I'll help you. What I communicated, and was careful to do so, is that you made an argument that rested on the assumption of a perspective that, in this section, cannot be assumed.


As said, it can be quite safely assumed from reading my post.
 

Implying that I stated that supernatural beliefs trump other arguments is clearly not what I wrote, and anyone who reads my reply will now easily see how confused and over-emotional you have become.


It clearly is what you wrote. If jesus really was the son of god, then he really is a messiah and not a person with messiah complex- even though the behaviour is the same. You wrote that - as a correction of my post. I find that correction to be comedic.

Simply put, if he is the son of god then I can't really psychoanalyse him, can I? Psychoanalysis of the supernatural does not seem like a valid thing to do as obviously, "it" being supernatural means that "it" is impermeable to human understanding. This in fact is outlined in many religions and most commonly depicted by the phrase "strange are the ways of god" (meaning you shouldn't think about it/analyse too much).
 

I can find a difference between the embedded philosophy and various practices arising around it. I can also see consequences of the embedded philosophies - buddhism being a very peaceful way of life while all abrahamic religions have an extremely violent history and are a source of discord among people even today.

 
Although I recognize the value of peace, I would argue that peace is not a legitimate sole basis for spirituality.


This seems like a chicken-egg argument.
 

If it were, then peace by virtue of oppression could be a religion. If peace by sociological programming is the argument for the spirituality of Buddhism, then that could be accomplished a variety of ways and thus it need not be a religion nor should spirituality be solely measured by it. Also, you are falling into the common trap/propaganda of assigning blame for historical violence and group conflict solely to the religion of any one group.


We can compare the consequences of applying different philosophies/religions. If we do, we can't really deny the fact that some religions either facilitated or failed to stop violence more than others. You in fact also accept this claim in the quote below.
 

Even today, Buddhists are committing violence against Muslims. That is the power of inter-group conflict. It clearly transcends religion.Though, I am certainly not defending all Abrahamic religions. Some are expressly much more violently theologically intolerant and passively theologically intolerant than others.


In which you seem to imply that some abrahamic religions are more violent and intolerant than others. I'll jump to conclusions (from interacting with others in this forum section) and conclude you're talking about Islam.
 

I have many posts or even threads explaining the origins of life and the nature of duality embedded in it from its inception. I endorse buddhism because it is the only religion to recognize this physical/universal/eternal truth of life. I would be glad to discuss it with someone who hasn't made up his mind about it and acts endangered and hostile towards people having different opinions.

 
So disagreement and rhetorical argument is hostility? Interesting. You now state your "truth" as a proof. I get that and I get passionate belief, but it can't be an argument in this discussion. Also, I wasn't stating that your beliefs were false. I was only challenging you and stating that I didn't accept the premise that you would all have us accept as your proof, apparently lest we be "endangered" and "hostile". Anyone who is reading might begin to see a pattern by this point.


Hostility is making irrelevant and inflated points about me being wrong about something irrelevant and building it into a case while in fact ignoring the points I was actually trying to get across.

You saw nothing worth discussing in my post, but only things worth correcting. I don't really care about the audience. You on the other hand have mentioned an audience a few times already, I can't help but notice. So when I sum this up, you're here to correct me in front of a imagined cheering audience? Or better even, you're defending your imagined audience from the insults of my ignorant texts?

You were challenging me because I'm an arrogant opinionated asshole and as such I'm prime game. You didn't really focus on my point but simply anything to bring me down. Don't make this into more than it is.
 

Or you rather do not understand it and so it gives rise to your misunderstandings.

We can put our "understandings" aside as we clearly wont agree and simply look at the history.

How much violence was committed in the name of various "white men religions", and how much violence was committed by following the buddhist philosophy? Therefore, buddhist philosophy doesn't give rise to moral relativity but rather the white men "messiahed" religions do.

 
Sure. Now, without actual argument on your part, I simply do not understand and thus I "misunderstand". Philosophies that essentially hold man as god or have him seek progression toward god-hood are innately prone to moral relativism.


So, buddhism is then less prone to moral relativism in spite of you saying that nondualism gives rise to moral relativism?
 

Have you ever actually had a real, physical and spiritual non-dual experience? I have. However, even so, it didn't lead me to any premature notion that whatever was happening in my brain is necessarily the truth of human spiritual evolution. The mechanism could have been any number of things and assigning emotional and philosophical content to the experience would be too simple.
 
See my response to your last two sentences a couple of replies up.


I don't see how some experience you had and interpreted in some way is an argument towards anything in this case. What I was really talking about was threads like this one

http://www.longecity...volution/page-3

I've made later threads in other languages which philosophicaly define life, self-awareness and intelligence from the inception of life and provide a scaffold to understand the evolution of it all the way up to humans and so on.. this is all kinda off topic so I didn't want to get into this. Also I dont want to get into this with a person who's here to correct me in front of an imagined audience cheering for him as I think it would turn out to be a waste of my time.
 

Yes, and if you really are a god then you can't be an egomaniac, but are righteously narcissistic.

You actually think this is something worth pointing out? I find this point only has comedic-satiric value.

So, assuming that Gods exist, the mere quality of being one is pathological? That's comedic, to use your quaint arguing style.


No. The point is quite simple. It is very similar to that "a rich person can't be insane but rather eccentric." - the difference is in the richness. The phrase doesn't imply that all rich persons are insane/eccentric. You're again inflating a figure of speech into wrongness.

Anyway, this argument is a waste of time for me, you brought nothing new to the table and you show no respect for my intelect (while in fact wasting time on it - or rather wasting my time to gain your cheers from your imaginary audience). You purposefully misunderstand anything that can be misunderstood in any way in order to find something to correct, so I think I'm done with this. Go play with someone else.
  • Ill informed x 1

#23 Ames

  • Guest
  • 361 posts
  • 74
  • Location:Cloud 7

Posted 20 May 2015 - 04:04 PM

My word, buddy, you've lost the plot. I was actually going to attempt to make peace with you if you had presented a reasonable, although obviously not concilliatory, reply. Arguing with our incessant fallacies, circular arguments, and, later, outright indecipherable nonsense is not worth it. You will obviously never stop purposefully mis-stating what I wrote (without quoting me in full) and drawing erroneous conclusions on the matter (I, too, assume you are not that daft), poorly rationalizing your way out of legitimate critiques of exactly what you wrote (I'm apparently supposed to know what to ignore and not ignore in your writing), and telling me your inferences of what I intend, think and feel (again, without full quotes) as a means of argument. So, I'm to be admonished for addressing what you have said?  Back to la-la land with you.

 

I suggest that you be more sensitive to the terms "if" and all conjugations of "to be" in arguments. Reading a book on General Semantics could help.

 

I don't assume anyone is reading this. My reference to any readers was an appeal to any potential "judges" of the conversation that would be able to weigh for themselves the validity of statements and replies, as a means of allowing me to escape the obviously continuing circle of having to endlessly defend your misrepresentation of my statements. That is because I am not interested in continuing such a defense and, thus, instead of me replying I am content to leave it to third party judges to read what has already been written and to decide for themselves. This is not a private conversation, and thus we are writing for ourselves and others. A non-reply was not quite right at that point, and so I merely implied that we will leave what was already written to speak for itself to anyone who may be interested. Though, I am quite sure that this dispute has turned quite boring to anyone else. 

 

No one disrespects your intelligence. I did not initially realize that ego was a part of the conversation, but then again I guess that I did after your first emotional reply. No one is out to prove you wrong. I am here to have a discussion. Why does your relative status as "correct" fit into the discussion? Why do we have to be concerned with writing in deference to preserving your views? If you are "wrong", then you are. Though, my intent was not to prove your "wrong" nor to invalidate your views; with the exception of correcting an inaccurate, irrelevant, and thus seemingly hostile reference to religions under discussion as "white men's" religions. You would not have defended a disparaging generalization in regard to "Asian religions"? That is not the impression that I get, but unlike you I won't fall into the trap of using my inferences as a means of argument. 

 

My primary intent toward your primary points was to correct the language, appropriately, to leave the philosophical and rhetorical door open for alternatives to your conclusion that JC "was" BPD. When you state "is" this and 'is" that, without all necessary proofs, you are erroneously making conclusive statements. The appropriate way to state such hypothesis is "if" then "is". And, yes, it is erroneous to conclude that a hypothetical actual God can be pigeonholed within and classified as pathological by modern personality theory. No actual Gods have ever been studied. That is why your need to qualify your conclusions with a belief in only the natural status of JC is necessary. It is always correct to present an argument with all necessary information to understand it. It is not a matter of "common sense", but correct presentation form of theory. Unless you do not care about such things. One cannot be expected to know your particular beliefs unless you consider this to be a private forum.

 

Additionally, you are obviously offended when someone disagrees with even the language used or presents other philosophical avenues,  let alone when they disagree in full with the actual view. Heaven forbid. However, I have repeatedly stated that I did not state your views as wrong.

 

I enjoyed your posts on KOR though. Cheers.

 

 


Edited by golgi1, 20 May 2015 - 05:02 PM.

  • Good Point x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: jesus

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users